Pat Dollard | Young Americans

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

U.S. Fights For Boost In NATO Troops

Support fluctuates for Afghanistan mission

By Leander Schaerlaeckens, The Washington Times

BRUSSELS — For U.S. and other officials prodding NATO members to boost their troop strength in Afghanistan, it is a case of two steps forward and one step back.

Alliance spokesmen said several countries offered improved participation and cooperation in the mission at a recent conference in Brussels attended by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

But a few countries seek to reduce their contributions to the effort — which is aimed at bolstering the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai against Taliban insurgents — and others are talking about withdrawing altogether.

One NATO official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Gates is “struggling” to find more soldiers for the operation, but also noted that with 41,000 troops, the International Security Assistance Force is at 90 percent of its target strength.

“In the Balkans, we”ve never had more than 80 percent and there has never been a casualty there, so 90 percent is actually a lot,” he said.

Mr. Gates also asked European defense ministers to remove some of the so-called “caveats” that prohibit their troops from entering the most dangerous regions or participating in specified combat activities.

Although the exact details of the caveats haven”t been disclosed, they are thought to restrict some countries’ troops from flying at night, fighting in snow or even fighting at all. One senior U.S. defense official told Reuters news agency there is a total of 62 such restrictions.

“We need to lift our sights, it seems to me, and see what is required long-term for success, beyond the specific commitments that have already been made,” Mr. Gates said.

NATO spokesman James Appathurai said it is not realistic to ask governments to drop the caveats, but NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer did get a commitment from all countries that in an emergency situation, their forces can and will go where they are needed.

He also devised mechanisms making it easier for richer countries to help fund the deployments of poorer ones.

For example, “the Czech Republic has helicopters but can”t afford to deploy them,” a senior NATO official said. “Now, other countries without helicopters but with more funds are able to help them.”

Still, it has not been easy to coax more troops from NATO members, some of which have fewer than a dozen troops in Afghanistan.

The meeting in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, yielded commitments from Georgia for an additional 200 soldiers and some helicopters; from the Czech Republic and Slovakia for a combined 160 soldiers; from Hungary for a few dozen soldiers; and from Germany and France for 200 soldiers and 50 trainers, a NATO source said.

But the Netherlands prefers to cut its troop strength and wants another country to assume its logistical and helicopter duties. The Dutch government threatened that if these requests aren”t met, the country will consider pulling out of Afghanistan altogether.

Portugal, meanwhile, said it plans to reduce its contribution from 165 soldiers to 15 trainers and one transport airplane by August, according to the Lusa news agency.

The Netherlands warned it will not extend its troop presence in the volatile southern province of Uruzgan beyond August unless it gets more help from other NATO members.

“There is no free ride to peace and security. Fair risk and burden-sharing has to be the leading principle for NATO,” said Dutch Defense Minister Elmert van Middelkoop.

If the Netherlands does withdraw, there are fears others might follow. Canada, which faces growing domestic opposition to the operation because of mounting casualties, is considered a strong candidate to follow suit.

A ‘Forgotten’ War

As Iraq Improves, Coverage Dries Up

By Ralph Peters

LAST weekend’s news coverage of our veterans was welcome, but deceptive. The “mainstream media” honored aging heroes and noted the debt we owe to today’s wounded warriors - but deftly avoided in-depth coverage from Iraq. Why? Because things are going annoyingly well.

All those reporters, editors and producers who predicted - longed for - an American defeat have moved on to more pressing strategic issues, such as O.J.’s latest shenanigans.

Oh, if you turned to the inner pages of the “leading” newspapers, you found grudging mention of the fact that roadside-bomb attacks are down by half and indirect-fire attacks by three-quarters while the number of suicide bombings has plummeted.

Far fewer Iraqi civilians are dying at the hands of extremists. U.S. and Coalition casualty rates have fallen dramatically. The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily.

Where are they? Is it really so painful for all those war-porno journos to accept that our military - and the Iraqis - may have turned the situation around? Shouldn’t we read and see and hear a bit of praise for today’s soldiers and the prog- ress they’re making?

The media’s new trick is to concentrate coverage on our wounded, mouthing platitudes while using military amputees as props to suggest that, no matter what happens in Iraq, everything’s still a disaster.

God knows, I sympathize with - and respect - those who’ve sacrificed life or limb in our country’s service. I just hate to see them used as political tools.

How many of you really believe that those perfectly coiffed reporters care about our soldiers and their families? Does anyone think those news anchors will invite any Marines in wheelchairs home for Thanksgiving?

Still, for the 100-proof nastiness of the intelligentsia, you have to move to the “entertainment” world. Hollywood declines to make a single movie about any of our Medal of Honor winners in Iraq - but has deluged us with left-wing diatribes, as activist actors and directors parade by with their limp bayonets fixed.

“Stars” who enjoy incredible privileges that our troops will never experience treat us to vicious propaganda - such flicks as “In The Valley Of Elah,” “Rendition” and the released-on-Veterans’-Day-weekend (gee, thanks) “Lions For Lambs.”

And then there’s the forthcoming “Redacted,” which wants us to grasp that our psychopathic military’s basic skills are the rape and murder of innocent civilians.

Immeasurably self-important, Hollywood tells itself these movies are acts of courage.

In some of the films, the victims - of their own leaders - are our troops. In others, the victims are innocent Muslims falsely linked to terrorism. But the unifying thread is that the only heroes are stay-at-homes who bravely fight for the truth.

A number of critics have noted that the American people refuse to pay an hour’s wages to see these films. Last weekend’s release, “Lions For Lambs,” earned less than $7 million, despite starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl “America’s in Peril” Streep. And that was the big-bucks earner so far.

Scriptwriters, directors and vanity-project actors (how many have been to Iraq?) scratch their heads and deplore our apathy. They fail to grasp what’s truly happening: We, the citizens and moviegoers, simply reject these films’ underlying message.

Because the real message of all of these in-the-toilet flicks isn’t just that the war in Iraq or the struggle against Islamist terrorists is bad - it’s that America is evil. At best, we’re the moral equivalent of our enemies.

You know down in your guts that isn’t true. I know it isn’t true. But the Reese Witherspoons and Tommy Lee Joneses, the Charlize Therons and Robert Redfords have a clearer perspective from Malibu and Sundance than we do: America not only isn’t worth defending; we’re a danger to all humanity. Our troops are the semi-literate tools of the powerful.

Well, the names on the marquees come and go, but our troops are always there for us. In good times and bad, those in uniform see us through. And, yes, our troops are defending the right of wealthy fools to make goofball propaganda films insulting them.

Now listen to what a real soldier (no makeup, no script), the assistant division commander of the U.S. Army’s 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad, had to say about the changes on the ground in Iraq during an internal end-of-tour interview: “As we’ve changed the environment for the Iraqis, the Iraqis are the bigger part of the solution now - and I don’t mean the security forces [but] the population.”

Brig.-Gen. Vincent Brooks stressed that the citizens have learned that “extremists of any ilk” are the real threat: “They’ve tasted what happens when those elements are sidelined. They long for the glory days of Baghdad, they really do.”

An impressive soldier and a man of conscience, Brooks acknowledged to his staff that the months ahead “will be difficult.” Success “will be challenged for indigenous reasons and, frankly, for external reasons, by those who don’t want to see Iraq be stable and prosperous.”

But the general stressed his belief that “the Iraqi people can do this.” That’s Hollywood’s nightmare. And the “mainstream” media’s.

Ralph Peters’ latest book is “Wars of Blood and Faith.”